The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JUSTIN RICHARD HAYWOOD PLAINTIFF
v. Case No. 4:23-cv-4096
DETECTIVE JEREMY POOLE;
SGT. TONY HANNING; and
SERGEANT ELEELY DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Justin Richard Haywood’s failure to comply with
Orders of the Court and to prosecute this matter. Plaintiff submitted this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
pro se on October 10, 2023. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted an Application to Proceed in forma
paupris (“IFP”) with his Complaint. ECF No. 2. That Application did not include the required
Certificate of inmate account. Accordingly, the Court provisionally filed Plaintiff’s Complaint
and ordered Plaintiff to submit a completed IFP application containing a Certificate of inmate
account by October 31, 2023. ECF No. 3.
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second IFP Application. ECF No. 5. However, he
again failed to attach a Certificate of inmate account with the Application. On November 1, 2023,
the Court entered an Order to Show Cause as to why Plaintiff failed to attach the Certificate of
inmate account. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was directed to respond by November 22, 2023. This Order
to Show Cause was not returned as undeliverable mail. To date, Plaintiff has not responded.
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984). The Local Rules state in pertinent part:
It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk
and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently.
. . . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party
proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate
dismissal of a case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with
orders of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)
(stating the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant
to Rule 41(b), a district court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff's failure to
comply with any court order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis
added).
Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case and comply with the Court’s Orders by failing to
submit a complete IFP Application. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), the Court finds that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of December 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge